Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

don't any one know about what star ship they are talking about. the one they have here is not enterprise ncc1701< this one from the 1966 to 1969, it is the refix of the new one of the ncc1701+A old one.

blssdwlf wrote:

Mytran wrote:

Great find on the upper door! Now we can correctly plot Kirk's (extremely long winded) route around the upper level.

A stern corridor for the upper level is tempting, but would there be enough space back there to justifiy all the traffic of personnel that we see?

You're right, space gets tricky back there. I'll mock up something so you can visualize how much space there is sometime today.

When this thread started it featured the TOS television Enterprise. But once you start a thread here at the BBS under a certain title you cannot change it later. Most readers of this thread (myself included) don't mind that it has evolved into a "Kirk's Enterprise WIP" thread (i.e. featuring the television version and the movies' version).

Additionally, some of the movie Enterprise interiors could provide clues how the TV interiors might be arranged. Officially, the movie Enterprise is still a "refit" of the television Enterprise, after all.

Bob

__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein

I've added that stern portside doorway to the upper level engine room and matched it to the screenshot. It's about 3' wide from my estimation.

I also rotated a copy of the upper level blue corridor around the vertical shaft so that it is on the stern (and offset to the port). On average, there is about 30' between the corridor to the outer hull (measured at the floor level, alot less by the ceiling.) I'd say you could have machinery and turbolifts running back there.

I've included a comparison of roominess between the 305m and 355m hulls.

BTW, I didn't find in TMP the gap in the flooring where the horizontal conduit room bulkhead door came down in TWOK so I think the bulkhead door was added some time after TMP but before TWOK.

The stern upper level blue corridor would work in TMP since there isn't any evidence of the bulkhead door. But like the changed forward blue corridor in TWOK, the upper level stern blue corridor probably doesn't connect the same way in TWOK to the upper level engine room with the bulkhead door in the way, IMHO.

But I really do suggest you double-check the first frames of the scene in TWOK where Kirk "slides" down the engine room ladder. There is something noticably odd with the wall structure on the upper level, hinting a starboard stern door on the upper level, IMHO.

Update: The first frames of the scene with Spock descending the ladder clearly reveal the starboard door leading astern on the upper level.

If I'm not mistaken, Kirk's entering through that door in TMP (to arrive at the upper level) would be more "natural" and we wouldn't have to worry about the TWOK bulkhead door at all.

Bob

P.S.

Regarding the width of the connecting dorsal pylon I had previously relied on the accuracy of the Kimble blueprints.

However, the actual VFX model of the TMP Enterprise reveals that the maximal width of the dorsal is 59% of the maximal width of the torpedo bay section (which is wider than the Kimble blueprints suggest). According to my calculations the max. width of the dorsal on a 355 m O.L. Enterprise would turn out to be 8.4 meters (and not the 6.3 m I calculated previously, based on the inaccuracy in the blueprints).

__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; December 9 2013 at 03:09 PM.
Reason: Spock descending ladder is better scene

But I really do suggest you double-check the first frames of the scene in TWOK where Kirk "slides" down the engine room ladder. There is something noticably odd with the wall structure on the upper level, hinting a starboard stern door on the upper level, IMHO.

Update: The first frames of the scene with Spock descending the ladder clearly reveal the starboard door leading astern on the upper level.

I see the oddity there as it vaguely resembles a closed door. However, the vertical middle seam follows the wall seem below it and it appears too wide of a seem to be part of a door. You can compare that door seam and lack of framework to another actual closed door from TMP and see the difference.

Unfortunately, it's not a clear-cut door, IMO.

OTOH, the stern portside doorway in TMP does show a female crewman walking out of the doorway. That's a confirmed doorway. It could be argued that there might be a matching doorway on the starboard side since the intermix shaft is obscuring it but at this point it remains an unknown whether there was a stern starboard side door in TMP or TWOK.

Robert Comsol wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, Kirk's entering through that door in TMP (to arrive at the upper level) would be more "natural" and we wouldn't have to worry about the TWOK bulkhead door at all.

I'd prefer to think that there might be a matching stern starboard side door in TMP. TWOK, I'm not so sure as it looks more like a wall partition. As far as the bulkhead door in TWOK, clearly there were changes to the engine room like the addition of that stern starboard ladder, the bulkhead door, more machinery and the shorter forward blue corridor so having a new upper level entryway wouldn't be out of the question.

Robert Comsol wrote:

P.S.

Regarding the width of the connecting dorsal pylon I had previously relied on the accuracy of the Kimble blueprints.

However, the actual VFX model of the TMP Enterprise reveals that the maximal width of the dorsal is 59% of the maximal width of the torpedo bay section (which is wider than the Kimble blueprints suggest). According to my calculations the max. width of the dorsal on a 355 m O.L. Enterprise would turn out to be 8.4 meters (and not the 6.3 m I calculated previously, based on the inaccuracy in the blueprints).

On a 355m Enterprise, the dorsal width is 22.5' or 6.858m. The torpedo bay is approx 47' across. This is using the TMP CG Enterprise from Drexfiles as a base and scaling up. Also, be careful with using your screenshot as you need to account for perspective and camera distortion.

On a 355m Enterprise, the dorsal width is 22.5' or 6.858m. The torpedo bay is approx 47' across.

I did a size figure table yesterday, based on the Kimble blueprints and screencaps like this one from TUC. On a 355m Enterprise the navigational deflector casing would have a diameter of 19.8 m and the (max. / bow) width of the torpedo bay would indeed be 14.3 m or 47'.

Nevertheless the dorsal would be wider than 22.5', according to the screencap its width is 59% of the torpedo bay width, thus 8.4 m or 27.7'.

blssdwlf wrote:

This is using the TMP CG Enterprise from Drexfiles as a base and scaling up.

And this is a basic and general problem, IMHO. The strange humpback on the torpedo bay notwithstanding () all of these exterior views rely on the original Kimble blueprints which have a few "issues".

This particular one for example has correctly repositioned the dorsal windows but doesn't address the issue of the actual and maximal dorsal width.

blssdwlf wrote:

Also, be careful with using your screenshot as you need to account for perspective and camera distortion.

I'd like to think I pay attention and consider lens and perspective distortions. Since objects closer to our point of view appear larger than they are the TWOK screencap may be debatable.

However, that's different with the aforementioned screenshot from TUC where the max. dorsal width (visible) is behind the navigational deflector and the forward edge of the torpedo bay.

__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein

On a 355m Enterprise, the dorsal width is 22.5' or 6.858m. The torpedo bay is approx 47' across.

I did a size figure table yesterday, based on the Kimble blueprints and screencaps like this one from TUC. On a 355m Enterprise the navigational deflector casing would have a diameter of 19.8 m and the (max. / bow) width of the torpedo bay would indeed be 14.3 m or 47'.

Nevertheless the dorsal would be wider than 22.5', according to the screencap its width is 59% of the torpedo bay width, thus 8.4 m or 27.7'.

The problem with your screencap is that the widest part of the torpedo bay isn't obvious from that angle as it is towards the front and tapers to the back. The dorsal will appear wider from the stern.

The only known low-distortion view of the Enterprise is the one from Drexfiles' orthos and the dorsal width is only 48% of the torpedobay and not 59%.

Robert Comsol wrote:

blssdwlf wrote:

This is using the TMP CG Enterprise from Drexfiles as a base and scaling up.

And this is a basic and general problem, IMHO. The strange humpback on the torpedo bay notwithstanding () all of these exterior views rely on the original Kimble blueprints which have a few "issues".

Where is your source for this? The Drexfiles ortho is from the CG TMP Enterprise that was accuratized Foundation Imaging for the TMP Director's Edition. Kimble's blueprints has it's own issues and I'm not using it.

Robert Comsol wrote:

blssdwlf wrote:

Also, be careful with using your screenshot as you need to account for perspective and camera distortion.

I'd like to think I pay attention and consider lens and perspective distortions. Since objects closer to our point of view appear larger than they are the TWOK screencap may be debatable.

However, that's different with the aforementioned screenshot from TUC where the max. dorsal width (visible) is behind the navigational deflector and the forward edge of the torpedo bay.

Yes, but:
1. from that angle the dorsal is tapering already (top wider, bottom lower) and we can't ascertain how wide the bottom of the dorsal is when it connects to the torpedo bay,
2. and we can't tell the actual max width of the torpedo bay from that angle as the widest part isn't obvious as well.

can you tell me what is about the star ship from the 1966 tv show of the enterprise, see there is no info on what you are doing i do like the size you are doing from the refit.

blssdwlf wrote:

Robert Comsol wrote:

blssdwlf wrote:

On a 355m Enterprise, the dorsal width is 22.5' or 6.858m. The torpedo bay is approx 47' across.

I did a size figure table yesterday, based on the Kimble blueprints and screencaps like this one from TUC. On a 355m Enterprise the navigational deflector casing would have a diameter of 19.8 m and the (max. / bow) width of the torpedo bay would indeed be 14.3 m or 47'.

Nevertheless the dorsal would be wider than 22.5', according to the screencap its width is 59% of the torpedo bay width, thus 8.4 m or 27.7'.

The problem with your screencap is that the widest part of the torpedo bay isn't obvious from that angle as it is towards the front and tapers to the back. The dorsal will appear wider from the stern.

The only known low-distortion view of the Enterprise is the one from Drexfiles' orthos and the dorsal width is only 48% of the torpedobay and not 59%.

Where is your source for this? The Drexfiles ortho is from the CG TMP Enterprise that was accuratized Foundation Imaging for the TMP Director's Edition. Kimble's blueprints has it's own issues and I'm not using it.

Robert Comsol wrote:

blssdwlf wrote:

Also, be careful with using your screenshot as you need to account for perspective and camera distortion.

I'd like to think I pay attention and consider lens and perspective distortions. Since objects closer to our point of view appear larger than they are the TWOK screencap may be debatable.

However, that's different with the aforementioned screenshot from TUC where the max. dorsal width (visible) is behind the navigational deflector and the forward edge of the torpedo bay.

Yes, but:
1. from that angle the dorsal is tapering already (top wider, bottom lower) and we can't ascertain how wide the bottom of the dorsal is when it connects to the torpedo bay,
2. and we can't tell the actual max width of the torpedo bay from that angle as the widest part isn't obvious as well.

The only known low-distortion view of the Enterprise is the one from Drexfiles' orthos and the dorsal width is only 48% of the torpedobay and not 59%.

I'm a little confused. Since when did the Thermians decide to rely on inaccurate third party recreations rather than the original (VFX) footage and photographs?

Here we see one of the more detailed front views of the actual and "real" ship.

Unlike the TOS Enterprise's rectangular (!) connecting dorsal, the refit Enterprise's dorsal has an "ovoid" (quote Andrew Probert) cross-section, i.e. it gets wider in the center and that width continues diagonally down towards the stern.

Because of its ovoid nature - opposite to a rectangular one - there is wiggle room in determining its actual width when not in a perfect and centered front view like the above shot.

What we do see in the shot is that the max. width of the dorsal is approximately 59% of the max. width of the torpedo bay and not 48%.

blssdwlf wrote:

The Drexfiles ortho is from the CG TMP Enterprise that was accuratized Foundation Imaging for the TMP Director's Edition. Kimble's blueprints has it's own issues and I'm not using it.

I'm sorry, but I can't see anything "accuratized" but rather the introduction of new and/or different inaccuracies.

Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the width of the dorsal accurately reproduced

Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the forward torpedo launcher section correct. Kimble didn't show the relief of the torpedo bay towards the forward launcher, Foundation Imaging exaggerated it.

Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging suggest a launcher opening that's too rectangular and betrays the noticable and original hexagonal shape

Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the shape of the forward sensor light (illuminating "NCC-1701") correct

But where Foundation Imaging made things really worse is their curvature of the torpedo bay "roof" (better and very noticable in the side views you often provide to visualize your engine component locations): its curvature is rather reminiscent of a fish or a banana and not compatible with the actual curvature of the "real" ship or VFX model.

Rather than siding for one or another inaccurate reproduction of the ship we should look for one that is truly accurate.

Didn't Tobias Richter (The Light Works) do such a CGI recreation?

Bob

__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein

The only known low-distortion view of the Enterprise is the one from Drexfiles' orthos and the dorsal width is only 48% of the torpedobay and not 59%.

I'm a little confused. Since when did the Thermians decide to rely on inaccurate third party recreations rather than the original (VFX) footage and photographs?

1. That recreation appeared onscreen in the Director's Edition.
2. The amount of inaccuracies relative to other blueprints is very low.
3. It's the only undistorted orthographic view of an onscreen TMP Enterprise, AFAIK.

As a Thermian, the argument is simply this:
1. You cannot get an accurate sizing from the original footage using the filmed front and back angles due to the complex shapes and distortion involved.

Robert Comsol wrote:

Here we see one of the more detailed front views of the actual and "real" ship.

And again, due to foreshortening, the max width of the torpedo bay is obscured. I question any accuracy that you're able to get from that picture.

Robert Comsol wrote:

blssdwlf wrote:

The Drexfiles ortho is from the CG TMP Enterprise that was accuratized Foundation Imaging for the TMP Director's Edition. Kimble's blueprints has it's own issues and I'm not using it.

I'm sorry, but I can't see anything "accuratized" but rather the introduction of new and/or different inaccuracies.

Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the width of the dorsal accurately reproduced

That's your opinion that is unfounded based on the images you are using.

Robert Comsol wrote:

Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the forward torpedo launcher section correct. Kimble didn't show the relief of the torpedo bay towards the forward launcher, Foundation Imaging exaggerated it.

Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging suggest a launcher opening that's too rectangular and betrays the noticable and original hexagonal shape

Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the shape of the forward sensor light (illuminating "NCC-1701") correct

You'll need to illustrate these problems as I don't see the issue.

Robert Comsol wrote:

But where Foundation Imaging made things really worse is their curvature of the torpedo bay "roof" (better and very noticable in the side views you often provide to visualize your engine component locations): its curvature is rather reminiscent of a fish or a banana and not compatible with the actual curvature of the "real" ship or VFX model.

This I partially agree with. The hump of the ceiling should be moved forward as the FI version is too far behind the docking port. However, the real model does have a curve to it.

Robert Comsol wrote:

Rather than siding for one or another inaccurate reproduction of the ship we should look for one that is truly accurate.

Didn't Tobias Richter (The Light Works) do such a CGI recreation?

Bob

Didn't you just say not to side with one inaccurate reproduction and then you mention another 3rd party CGI model? How many cakes do you want to eat at the same time?

If you want a true width to that dorsal, get someone to measure it off the 8' ? model. Otherwise you're dealing with inaccuracy through visual distortion going through the visual footage using the front or back angles.

1. That recreation appeared onscreen in the Director's Edition.
2. The amount of inaccuracies relative to other blueprints is very low.
3. It's the only undistorted orthographic view of an onscreen TMP Enterprise, AFAIK.

I see. Although it contradicts the footage featuring the VFX model (e.g. torpedo bay humpback) in the same Director's Edition, the CG rendering takes precedence over this footage and the footage from the other 5 films.

Didn't you just say not to side with one inaccurate reproduction and then you mention another 3rd party CGI model? How many cakes do you want to eat at the same time?

Since you are twisting my words this is the time where my favorite HAL 9000 quote would be appropriate.

You are implying nothing less that Tobias Richter's CGI reproduction is equally inaccurate (I haven't seen it in detail, yet, but usually Tobias aims at a higher than average accuracy in his works).

I don't need cakes, I'd just like to see one reproduction of the refit Enterprise that can truly claim to be accurate.

END

__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein